Jews and Christians claim we are all sinners, but that is a belief according to the Bible.
Is it right for them to be able to be able to claim, "We are all sinners," when a sin is supposedly something aberrant and vile?
I don't want to be called aberrant and vile.
When they claim "We are all sinners," are they only referring to themselves? or are they saying that we, whom don't follow their religion, engage in the practices they adhere to - indeed brag about?
I, for one, don't sin, just as I don't make wishes on Leprechaun Gold.
It seems to me, if they wish to claim, even brag about being born in sin, it is their right, but to make this sweeping claim about the rest of us is insulting.
Is there any way, if you don't believe in the Bible's definition of sin, that you can sin?
"We are all sinners..."
Moderator: Moderators
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: "We are all sinners..."
Post #31[Replying to post 29 by Justin108]
How about that? The dictionary went to the BIBLE to get the definition of sin. That's what I asked you to do!
I disagree with the rest of your post as, if you don't understand why I would exaggerate to make a point, there is no helping you, and as we have seen, chasing down choice of language with you is a pointless endeavor. I simply don't care to argue semantics with you, I try to explain and you tell me my explanation is wrong. I can't help you.
As to applicably, this seems to be your failing - it is at times necessary to use abstractions and generalizations to make a point. They seem clear to me, it seemed clear to others, except JW, who appears to like sacrificing virgins (kidding, obviously he read what he wanted to read). I mean it was obvious to me that we all don't sacrifice virgins to a non-existent god, and that to be accused of doing so (sincerely, not in abstract, as if the person believed that you really did sacrifice) would be offensive.
Have a party.
How about that? The dictionary went to the BIBLE to get the definition of sin. That's what I asked you to do!
I disagree with the rest of your post as, if you don't understand why I would exaggerate to make a point, there is no helping you, and as we have seen, chasing down choice of language with you is a pointless endeavor. I simply don't care to argue semantics with you, I try to explain and you tell me my explanation is wrong. I can't help you.
As to applicably, this seems to be your failing - it is at times necessary to use abstractions and generalizations to make a point. They seem clear to me, it seemed clear to others, except JW, who appears to like sacrificing virgins (kidding, obviously he read what he wanted to read). I mean it was obvious to me that we all don't sacrifice virgins to a non-existent god, and that to be accused of doing so (sincerely, not in abstract, as if the person believed that you really did sacrifice) would be offensive.
Have a party.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: "We are all sinners..."
Post #32[Replying to post 31 by Willum]
Defining 'sin' would seem applicable.
Is it just what Jews and Christians say it is in referencing the bible?
Or is it more to do with actions of good and evil, defined by the subjective observer and their particular definition of 'good' and 'evil'?
For example - often the arguments about the nature of the idea of the OT GOD is that he is an evil entity.
This is due to such things attributed to him as the flood and ordering genocide - the list is quite long apparently.
IF:
Sin is an action of evil
THEN:
Do you - Willum - consider the OT GOD to be a 'sinner'?
Because it seems to me in the OP that you agree at least that sin = that which is understood as being aberrant and vile.
The crux of the complaint appears to be that you are offended by how others label you, and in the case of religious doctrine allowing for its adherents to call you a 'sinner' they are basically saying you are "aberrant and vile" - and of course, are being generous with their appraisals in relation to other humans who do not hold the same beliefs as they, whilst strangely quiet and non-committal about both the direct and indirect actions of their idea of GOD.
Perhaps you have yet to come to the conclusion that such people and their opinions about you are besides the point?
In the grand scheme of things, such judgement might prove to be the worlds undoing. Certainly - they would prove to have played a role in that event.
But so what? If human beings don't make it as a species, how is that really a problem? All you can do is remain non-vile and non-aberrant in your actions, regardless of what outcome occurs. It won't matter will it? It is not as if - in doing so, you can change the outcome anyway, and your death is simply a matter of no longer existing so it shouldn't matter in that regard either.
I think (as an example) that systems of disparity are vile and aberrant in relation to nature, - like a 'sin' against nature - but so what? Most don't think that at all. I accept that and don't regard those who support such systems to being 'vile and aberrant' although actions such as greed and deception etc which support such systems might generally be regarded as such.
I see no point in joining the rank and file of name-callers because I have noticed behind all that is the common thread of hypocrisy and think rather, 'what will be will be'...if human beings are naturally selected out of the picture due to their 'vile and aberrant' behavior against nature, then so be it. The *commonality of their hypocrisy is the root source of that.
Perhaps *that is really what 'sin' is?
Defining 'sin' would seem applicable.
Is it just what Jews and Christians say it is in referencing the bible?
Or is it more to do with actions of good and evil, defined by the subjective observer and their particular definition of 'good' and 'evil'?
For example - often the arguments about the nature of the idea of the OT GOD is that he is an evil entity.
This is due to such things attributed to him as the flood and ordering genocide - the list is quite long apparently.
IF:
Sin is an action of evil
THEN:
Do you - Willum - consider the OT GOD to be a 'sinner'?
Because it seems to me in the OP that you agree at least that sin = that which is understood as being aberrant and vile.
The crux of the complaint appears to be that you are offended by how others label you, and in the case of religious doctrine allowing for its adherents to call you a 'sinner' they are basically saying you are "aberrant and vile" - and of course, are being generous with their appraisals in relation to other humans who do not hold the same beliefs as they, whilst strangely quiet and non-committal about both the direct and indirect actions of their idea of GOD.
Perhaps you have yet to come to the conclusion that such people and their opinions about you are besides the point?
In the grand scheme of things, such judgement might prove to be the worlds undoing. Certainly - they would prove to have played a role in that event.
But so what? If human beings don't make it as a species, how is that really a problem? All you can do is remain non-vile and non-aberrant in your actions, regardless of what outcome occurs. It won't matter will it? It is not as if - in doing so, you can change the outcome anyway, and your death is simply a matter of no longer existing so it shouldn't matter in that regard either.
I think (as an example) that systems of disparity are vile and aberrant in relation to nature, - like a 'sin' against nature - but so what? Most don't think that at all. I accept that and don't regard those who support such systems to being 'vile and aberrant' although actions such as greed and deception etc which support such systems might generally be regarded as such.
I see no point in joining the rank and file of name-callers because I have noticed behind all that is the common thread of hypocrisy and think rather, 'what will be will be'...if human beings are naturally selected out of the picture due to their 'vile and aberrant' behavior against nature, then so be it. The *commonality of their hypocrisy is the root source of that.
Perhaps *that is really what 'sin' is?
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: "We are all sinners..."
Post #33[Replying to post 32 by William]
Well, lets just define and redefine every word according to someone's perspective... very useful.
For, Christians and Jews (CJ), the only ones who appeal to the idea "we all sin," it is all about the Bible, and good and evil are from the Bible. According to CJ's God is the only standard for good and evil.
God can't sin against himself.
I really don't know what is difficult to understand.
SIn is something aberrant and vile, according to the Bible.
Christians claim we all sin.
But anyone not apart of their religion does not sin, there for they are not only inflicting their religion on us, but inflicting its most disgusting bits.
My point is, they believe they are sinners.
That's fine.
They can even believe I am a sinner.
But saying it, as if it was true is demeaning.
For example: I might believe we are all stinky.
That is fine.
I can even believe I am a stinky.
But if I say, we are all stinky, I am not only wrong but inflicting my belief on you.
Are you stinky because I say so?
Do you sin because someone else's book says so?
No.
Is there even such a thing as sin, if you don't believe the Bible?
No.
Well, lets just define and redefine every word according to someone's perspective... very useful.
For, Christians and Jews (CJ), the only ones who appeal to the idea "we all sin," it is all about the Bible, and good and evil are from the Bible. According to CJ's God is the only standard for good and evil.
God can't sin against himself.
Not quite, CJs consider it vile, I consider it inconsiderate for CJs to lump everyone into their religious standards.sin = that which is understood as being aberrant and vile.
I really don't know what is difficult to understand.
SIn is something aberrant and vile, according to the Bible.
Christians claim we all sin.
But anyone not apart of their religion does not sin, there for they are not only inflicting their religion on us, but inflicting its most disgusting bits.
My point is, they believe they are sinners.
That's fine.
They can even believe I am a sinner.
But saying it, as if it was true is demeaning.
For example: I might believe we are all stinky.
That is fine.
I can even believe I am a stinky.
But if I say, we are all stinky, I am not only wrong but inflicting my belief on you.
Are you stinky because I say so?
Do you sin because someone else's book says so?
No.
Is there even such a thing as sin, if you don't believe the Bible?
No.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: "We are all sinners..."
Post #34[Replying to post 33 by Willum]
Perhaps you have yet to come to the conclusion that such people and their opinions about you are besides the point?They can even believe I am a sinner.
But saying it, as if it was true is demeaning.
Re: "We are all sinners..."
Post #35What does it matter where it got the definition? The point is it's an official word in the English language. The word "addiction" was (supposedly) invented by William Shakespeare. Would it make any sense for a drug addict to say "I don't have any addictions because William Shakespeare invented the word"? No! Because what the hell does it matter how a word came to be? It is now a word and it has a definition. And according to the definition of the word sin, a word in the English language, regardless of the origin of the word, you are most likely a sinner.Willum wrote: [Replying to post 29 by Justin108]
How about that? The dictionary went to the BIBLE to get the definition of sin. That's what I asked you to do!
Wow that's all it takes? And here I've been coming up with well thought-out arguments against my opponent. And all this time, all I had to do was say "I don't agree with your post". See normally on this sight, one goes into detail about why one's opponents' arguments fail.Willum wrote:I disagree with the rest of your post as, if you don't understand why I would exaggerate to make a point, there is no helping you
You don't just disagree with my point, you missed it entirely. I clearly stated that your comparison is not just an exaggeration, it is something simply not comparable. I substituted your exaggerated scenario with a much milder scenario to illustrate my point. But it clearly went over your head.
I explained in detail why your abstraction and generalization fails in comparison. But instead of argue against my specific explanation for why your argument fails, you instead opt for a general "you just didn't get it" cop-out. I explained specifically why "everyone sacrifices to Ba'al" fails as a comparison. Not because it is "extreme" as you keep insisting, but because, by definition, we are clearly not all sacrificing to Ba'al. However, by definition, we are all sinners. Again, this is not about your comparison being "too extreme", it's about it failing as any way comparable to sin. I tried to illustrate this with my "eating vulture eggs for Ba'al" example, but you just completely ignored it. Nice dodge.Willum wrote: As to applicably, this seems to be your failing - it is at times necessary to use abstractions and generalizations to make a point.
But yeah the gist of it is - we all (most likely) sin by definition. If you ever covet, lust, blaspheme, or any of the naughty things the Bible tells us not to do, then you are a sinner by definition whether you like it or not. So OP solved? Are we done here?
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: "We are all sinners..."
Post #36[Replying to post 35 by Justin108]
I don't find nit-picking well-thought-out.
I find it easy to examine someones' post line by line and decry the language.
I am afraid the only real response I have for your lines and lines of well thought out text is:
OK, whatever.
I don't find nit-picking well-thought-out.
I find it easy to examine someones' post line by line and decry the language.
I am afraid the only real response I have for your lines and lines of well thought out text is:
OK, whatever.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: "We are all sinners..."
Post #37But it isn't about me.William wrote: [Replying to post 33 by Willum]
Perhaps you have yet to come to the conclusion that such people and their opinions about you are besides the point?They can even believe I am a sinner.
But saying it, as if it was true is demeaning.
The line I have trouble with is the expression, "We are all sinners."
So yes, I take umbrage with it, but you should to.
Jews and Christians (JCs) are all sinners. That's what their Bible says. There Bible says they are bad people, unworthy people. There is nothing in any non-JCs philosophy that tells them they are bad (necessarily), so what should non-JCs accept having that mud slung on them?
Are you a bad and unworthy person?
For example: You've got some wild ideas, but I think, if even those were applied universally, they would improve the state of mankind, nobly. I don't think the concepts you present could be used to invoke a higher authority for war or genocide - am I wrong?
Last edited by Willum on Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: "We are all sinners..."
Post #38And by "nit-picking" you of course mean proving you sin by simply pointing to what the word means...?
Usually your responses are poor arguments void of any logic. This time, however, you just give up and don't offer any argument whatsoever. Oddly enough, that's actually progress. Proud of you, Willum. Keep it up.Willum wrote: I am afraid the only real response I have for your lines and lines of well thought out text is:
OK, whatever.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: "We are all sinners..."
Post #39[Replying to post 38 by Justin108]
Sorry, bub, our correspondences haven't been worth much time responding to.
I will never get over the whole "sex" discussion. I couldn't believe it went on for pages on a subject that wasn't germane to topic, or even that relevant. Even when I concede the/a insignificant point, that wasn't sufficient.
So, whatever.
In the case of your Herculean definition... sin ain't for me to define, for example.
So, whatever.
Are we there yet?
No we're not.
Sorry, bub, our correspondences haven't been worth much time responding to.
I will never get over the whole "sex" discussion. I couldn't believe it went on for pages on a subject that wasn't germane to topic, or even that relevant. Even when I concede the/a insignificant point, that wasn't sufficient.
So, whatever.
In the case of your Herculean definition... sin ain't for me to define, for example.
So, whatever.
Are we there yet?
No we're not.
Re: "We are all sinners..."
Post #40Then I guess you shouldn't have accused God of practically raping Mary. I love how you constantly bring up absurd topics, and once I point out the flaws in your absurd topics, you generate cop-outs like "gasp! we can't talk about sex!" (even though you brought it up), and now you accuse me of arguing semantics when the meaning of sin is exactly what is up for debate! What exactly do you expect when you open these topics? Why open them and then look for excuses to escape the discussion?Willum wrote: [Replying to post 38 by Justin108]
Sorry, bub, our correspondences haven't been worth much time responding to.
I will never get over the whole "sex" discussion.
If it wasn't germane to the topic, why did you bring it up at all? I didn't bring this up out of nowhere. I responded to you bringing it up out of nowhere.Willum wrote:I couldn't believe it went on for pages on a subject that wasn't germane to topic
The irony is almost overwhelming. How exactly is our previous discussion about God having sex with Mary relevant to this topic? Not at all? Ok. Then why bring it up? You accuse me of discussing things irrelevant to the topic by bringing something up that's irrelevant to the topicWillum wrote:or even that relevant.
Please explain how the definition of the word "sin" is irrelevant in a topic asking whether we all sin?
Willum: do we all sin?
Justin: define sin
Willum: that is completely and utterly irrelevant to the topic!
As I have repeatedly said, you cannot deny doing something if you cannot define that something. It would make absolutely no sense.Willum wrote: In the case of you Herculean definition... sin ain't for me to define, for example.
Consider this. A Creationist Christian is sitting in a biology lecture. The lecturer points out the fact that humans are animals. The Creationist then stands up, offended as all hell, and shouts "I am not an animal!". The lecturer then points out that he is indeed an animal as per the definition of the word "animal".
In this scenario, who is right? The lecturer for pointing out that people are, by definition, animals? Or the Creationist who refuses to acknowledge the definition of the word "animal"?
